No such thing as Reincarnation

All of this hoo-ha-hee about reincarnation are scientifically and empirically false, as much of the so-called "evidence" is mainly through out-of-body experiences and such. This article refutes the idea of reincarnation.

If reincarnation does exist, it sure isn't as self-evident as, say, language acquisition.

Maybe it is simply rare, or as subtle that its very existence may be arguable.

Most of the events presented as evidence for the existence of reincarnation are quite unusual even if taken at face value. Why would it be so if reincarnation were common?

Are we to believe that only one in thousands of people reincarnates, or does so in a way that leaves something that might be argued as evidence? If so, why even interpret it as reincarnation instead of something less contrived such as perhaps ESP?

If reincarnation does exist, it sure isn't as self-evident as, say, language acquisition.

Maybe it is simply rare, or as subtle that its very existence may be arguable.

Most of the events presented as evidence for the existence of reincarnation are quite unusual even if taken at face value. Why would it be so if reincarnation were common?

Are we to believe that only one in thousands of people reincarnates, or does so in a way that leaves something that might be argued as evidence? If so, why even interpret it as reincarnation instead of something less contrived such as perhaps ESP?

Click to expand...

For me, I believe in a metaphorical reincarnation, where you go through many phases in just one lifetime.

Well my two cents is this: Heaven is FAR less believable then reincarnation. Lets say we all do have souls and they all go places when we die. Those that believe in Heaven or Hell say the souls go to one of those places despite the facts that no such places can be seen in the known universe. While reincarnationists say they are reborn into other living beings, things we CAN prove and KNOW exist.

The only person who tried to prove reincarnation was Ian Stevenson, who did not do it quite successfully.

Click to expand...

Correction, Dr. Stevenson never said he was trying to 'prove' reincarnation. He was presenting evidence 'suggestive' of reincarnation. He was quite successful at that.

His evidence combined with evidence and teachings from other sources creates a strong case for reincarnation. A belief I strongly hold.

I didn't bother to read your links just like you didn't read the pro-reincarnation sources another poster mentioned. Anything with the title 'Reincarnation Debunked' is obviously dripping with one-sided emotional motivation. I'd be more inclined to read a post titled 'reincarnation intelligently considered' by someone who rejects reincarnation.

Lets say we all do have souls and they all go places when we die. Those that believe in Heaven or Hell say the souls go to one of those places despite the facts that no such places can be seen in the known universe. While reincarnationists say they are reborn into other living beings, things we CAN prove and KNOW exist.

Click to expand...

The problem with your argument there is 'what happens to souls between lifetimes?'. They are not in the known universe.

IMO. Well heaven and reincarnation both exists. Heaven is the between life state (also called the astral plane and is still a temporary state).

The problem with your argument there is 'what happens to souls between lifetimes?'. They are not in the known universe.

Click to expand...

I never said they just instantly reincarnated, and honestly ?I do not know. I am speaking of the "eternal heaven". You are free to believe in heaven or hell that's fine. I honestly don't know if I do. my argument was only to bring up this one fact. It is easy to prove livings things exist it is VERY hard to prove heaven or hell exist. This if one believes in souls I see reincarnation as the "more logical" belief.